PDF File

Kids Need Science In Sex Ed

How should a Christian respond when asked about what ought to be taught in a sex education class and to whom and when? It is an interesting question because it assumes children ought to be educated about sex, rather than say about moral right and wrong as it relates to bodily autonomy or about biology as it relates to the questions that come up regarding raising children.

Many Christians believe the issue has become defined by liberal educators. The left views sex education as a health and safety issue. Children need good information, say liberals, so they can make the right choices. But we are not talking after school snacks. The liberal position suggests it is not up to the parents and teachers to protect children from exposure to sexual events. The child is to be given the tools to make these kinds of choices on their own. To suggest pre-teens can make informed choices regarding sex or that they can be given information that would allow them to protect themselves against sexual predators, is an odd road to go down for people who are experienced in dealing with children.

However, the liberal narrative ensures the Christian response cannot just reiterate the moral sin of fornication. We need to appeal to the teachings of God but in a subtler way. It is important at this point for Christians to realize our position is buttressed by science. First of all, we need to point out that if parents and teachers and the legal system do their job the issue of safety based on the ability of children to understand informed consent is moot.

Above all we need to realize the liberal position cannot be defended by science because it is not based on science. Christians are well position to debate the issue on the grounds of scientific credibility. There is room for discussions on safety outside of the science of biology. Schools can and ought to discuss safety issues surrounding the use of computers, educators, sports figures and other persons they will meet. Safety however is not about protecting the child from assault it is about making sure the child understands the tools being used to protect them, so they learn to operate within them.

It is the position of this writer that assault is assault and a separate issue from sex. Sex education deserves to be offered on a scientific and objective basis. Sex needs to be treated as the assault it is until the child reaches the age of consent. The desire here is to move the debate from the ideological and political sphere and into a less divisive arena. This essay seeks to establish a program that is free of the subjectivity that has allowed age inappropriate material to be introduced.

Our concern for the young must not become mixed up in or become part of the political dialogue. Sex education must not be swayed by emotional concerns nor be caught up in anyone’s social agenda. The introduction of a sexual identity into a child’s life is of course subject to a wide range of emotional influences. The school system ought not to add to this confusion and certainly ought not to seek to influence the child by insisting a single voice (that of the educator) be heard. Curricular must never be allowed to focus on subjective positions. All curricula on all subjects must be established on a sound, scientific basis and in coming to a decision as to what to include and what to leave out and what perspective to take in dealing with the matter, no personal bias ought to enter in. To give way to personal bias and distraught emotionalism in setting out what to teach is to fall afoul of indoctrination, a cruel and inhuman prospect when dealing with the youngest and most vulnerable members of society.

It is scientifically established there are two sexes. This cannot be disputed logically, biologically nor sexually and is buttressed by every scientific study done; and every birth ever recorded. This indisputable fact must serve as the foundation of this and every inquiry into the subject of sex.

Sexual identity is based on our chromosomal inheritance. Humans have only two chromosomes defining their sexual orientation, these are the X and Y chromosomes. A female has two XX Chromosomes and a male has an XY Chromosome. This is and remains a solid scientific fact not to be cast aside for the purpose of political expediency.

We are all born one of two sexes. All persons born are born from a union of male and female, there are no exceptions. We all have at conception a male contributor of sperm and a female contributor of an egg. The male is traditionally referred to as the father of the new life and the female is known as the mother. This fact substantiates the previously established fact. Two sexes produce all known offspring each with one of two chromosomal pairs.

The contributor of the sperm is a sexual male and he fertilizes the egg. To do this he penetrates the female with his sex organ known as a penis and ejects or ejaculates the fertilizing medium into the female. The egg is within the female and is fertilized in the womb of the female. The female receives the sperm of the male and carries the new life as it develops to the point where it can be birthed.

Every child born is born of a mother and father. There are no known exceptions. The mother is female with two X chromosomes the father is a male with an XY pair.

The structure of a family can be varied in many ways according to the choices made by the mother and the father, the male and female parents, but the core family, the nuclear family is always biologically composed of a mother who gives birth and nurtures the child, a father who inseminates the mother and offers protection and support to the female (normally referred to as his wife), and any number of children who may be male or female and who will grow up potentially able to inseminate a female or be inseminated by a male.

The bodies of male and female are designed to recreate males and females and to perpetuate the species. There are certain biological and species-specific changes that must happen and sociological conditions that must be met to enable the species to not just survive but to thrive.

One parent families post birth are possible just as one-person companies are possible. One-person companies generally do not have a good chance of success, nor do one parent families. The requirements of raising a child and performing the tasks associated with maintaining a family overwhelm one person. The demands are too complex and polarized to be handled successfully by a person of one sex. This is why the vast majority of social issues can be traced back to the one parent family and most business failure to one-person companies.

Simple biology that tells us that all babies born are born to mothers. This means that by default most single parent families are females with children. This also logically means it is the fathers who were either rejected as caregivers or choose to abdicate this role.

If a child does not have a mother and father caring for it there is only one conclusion, either its biological parent abandoned it or was rejected as a parent by the other nuclear parent. If the child is not part of a biological nuclear family some moral or sociological abnormality was injected into the family.

Let’s clarify this further. Biologically and scientifically speaking the nuclear fact of mother, father, child cannot be disputed. There are no other possibilities. If we see another form or pattern, then this is a result of an extraordinary intervention. The intervention is deemed extraordinary as it exists in addition to the normal course of events. Normal in this sense, within the context of this study, is that which is biologically necessary. Deviations from the normal cannot be considered normal when by definition it is a deviation from the biological norm.

If N is universal and normal is to mean anything at all then what is normal must be tied to the universality of an event. If N is the universally observed configuration of F, and R is a deviation from N and N requires F(+ v – z) = R then in all logic and reason R is a deviation of the normalcy of N and cannot be construed to be normal.

That R is not illegal is not equivalent to being normal in the logical or observational sense.

The nuclear family of mother, father and child is the normal social state of what we call a family. All other forms of family are deviations and derivatives of this basic and biological absolute.

Science has unequivocally established:

there are only two sexes, male and female,

all children are born of two parents a male and a female

the birth of children to a male and female creates what is called a nuclear family

All deviations from this are deviations due to biological or sociological distortions that are not biologically viable in the sense of being replicable or reproducible.

The biologically normal family is the substrate and precursor to all deviations and derivations from the norm.

As the nuclear family is the unvarying natural order of things all children ought to remain preferentially in the context of a nuclear family. We say preferentially because ideally and biologically speaking there are only two options that can happen developmentally speaking. The natural order can be preserved or rejected. If we wish the human race and all of its elements to be preserved the human race has no choice but to remain true to the natural order of things totally or to a substantial degree.

Categorically and absolutely the race needs males and females, this of necessity means we need females to grow up to be females and males to be and grow up to be males. This is not philosophical obfuscation, it is not rhetorical posturing. This is scientific fact. Stressing the need for males and females is not an attempt to take the discussion beyond the bounds of human comprehension. It is scientifically demonstratable the race to persist needs males and females. What a particular social agenda needs or wants is irrelevant to the reality of biological necessity and to this discussion. We are staying as much as possible to what can be scientifically and logically demonstrated.

We believe staying within the bounds of reason and logic is a debt we owe to future generations if not ourselves.

The characteristics of a female are biologically fixed. A female is fixed by biology, but her biology has to translate into the biology of reproduction. Females must be able to attract a male and be able to breed at some point in her life. Offspring fulfill the female role. But if she will not produce offspring that is a replacement for one or both sexes her fecundity is immaterial.

Physical appearance is important because communication is important. In some people’s reality it may be important to know a person is a devotee of Marx, but others may find it vital their friends hate Marx. Subjective elements are to be discarded in dealing with sex education. We cannot make one’s political position relevant in discussions of sexual orientation.

However, the ability to be male or female is vital and an objective standard we cannot logically dispute.

There are different interpretations as to what a male or female can be. These subjective interpretations of gender need not be discussed in a science class and have no place in sex education. This is not to say gender studies cannot be pursued but this is sociology not sex. Sex education is a class based on science not politics and not on social agendas.

To establish the foundation of our discussion once again let’s remember that the nuclear family is the biological norm. The basic objective of the nuclear family is to reproduce itself, biologically speaking. Thus, the nuclear family ought to, ideally, seek to produce at least one biological male and one biological female on average. Thus, a community ought to produce sufficient of each biological sex to reproduce the population of said community.

As an aside, it is the nuclear family that is the key element. Individuals are irrelevant in this regard. If we do not have reproducing pairs and if they do not have children nothing else has significance.

Here is where subjective factors can easily enter in, however. While we have established that a female needs to be able and willing to birth children and nurture them to the point where they can reproduce is there anything that suggests a woman is other than the possession of the basic apparatus, such as womb and ovary.

We can get assume logically that a woman is not a man. If the reproductive energies are geared to different but synergic roles, then we have a bifurcation of natures to create a coherent institution called a family. How serious or important is this organizational structure? Can we marginalize the roles and merge the activities of each element and still produce a viable system? Secondary roles can and are reversed and merged but to what end? This taking what is natural and biologically based and transforming it for sociological ends is putting politics into biology and cannot be justified on any other than political grounds. If it is only justified politically it can as easily be dismissed on the same grounds.

The fact there are two sexes biologically speaking allows us and indeed demands we conclude there are two sexual roles and that each is distinct from the other. Or as we said earlier, a woman is not a man and vice versa.

If a woman is not a man logically and scientifically we are forced to concede that if we define a woman by XYZ then the male must be defined in opposite terms; men are that which are not XYZ. If we define men as containing the elements of ABC then females are humans without ABC.

Each sex has attributes peculiar to them and the absence of attributes peculiar to the other sex. Yet each is distinctly human.

Those humans that are possessors of LMN are human. LMN are not sexual characteristics or sexual delimiters.

Long hair could be a sexual delimiter defining a nubile female, but it could also be a non-specific gender identity common to both sexes. Long hair is a cultural attribution. Long hair could be or ought not be a sexually specific attribute; it is a marginal element. However, the conventional picture of the nubile young woman as a creature with flowing hair is valid as one of the attributes displayed in innumerable works of art demonstrate, the possession of long hair is important to the imagery of the female.

Ought society to diminish or even invalidate the characteristics of motherhood? That is for society to decide but scientifically the full hips and breasts of woman are important to the natural activity of child birth and child rearing.

The female is a gestalt that changes from culture to culture in specifics, but the intent is always to create one pattern than communicates female and another pattern that communicates male. It is not that males and females cannot recognize each other but it assists in the enculturation of the young.

The male role is as said at least partially defined as being that which is not the role of a female. Males possess XY chromosomes whereas females are XX determined. The sex of a child is determined by the father. The female contributes an X chromosome. The male contributes either an X or a Y. If the male contributes a Y chromosome the child is a boy and if the chromosome is a Y then the child will be female.

Scientifically speaking it is one or the other. It does not matter how many mothers some say a child has its sex was determined by a father, one father meaning a human with an XY chromosome and a penis.

Attempts to create gender fluidity or androgyny has been more successful at creating a minimalist kind of female than anything approaching an equal blend of male and female characteristics, in fact if one sees a male as a strong dominant individual, androgynous persons lose everything a male has. Stripping a female of her sexuality does not make an androgynous being but a prepubescent female. Androgyny may have more to do with pedophilia than a blending of the sexes.

Twiggy, probably the first attempt at creating an androgynous super model, was 122 pounds and 5’6”. Her fame at 16 was probably an early attempt to sexualize children more than a desire to eliminate or merge sexual identity. She never looked male even though she shortened her hair and never developed the characteristics of a mature woman.

It is not even logically possible to desexualize that which exists for sexual gratification. Androgynous models are, at least to some degree by the very nature of their occupation, sexualized children. If androgyny does not make for a sexually attractive partner in the conventional sense, then the look has to be attuned to some psychological quirk of the viewer, i.e. their desire to see a young person as a sexually active person.

This kind of caricature is not scientifically justified. Remember we are attempting to erect a curriculum on the basis of what can be firmly established in science or at least logic.

The sexualization of the young can be given political leverage but there is nothing in nature that would justify the action. The foundation of sex education can be nothing but the nuclear family and its role in procreation. Children cannot procreate and even where the physiology exists there is more to procreation than the physical mechanisms.

We have established that no one can refute the claim that a male and a female is required to produce offspring. It is also not possible to refute the claim offspring are required for the preservation of the species. People can and do add to this foundational argument, but this is always an addition to or deletion of what is established as the normal condition of human existence.

The sexualization of children belongs in the deviant category because it has no relevance to the normalcy previously established. While it can be agreed that from a political social agenda perspective a child can be sexualized it cannot be demonstrated to be normal in the above sense. A sexualized child is nor normal within the structure of a nuclear family. Thus, pedophilia cannot be normalized but must forever remain a form of deviancy.

Sexualizing a child before maturity adds nothing to the family or to the purpose of the family unit.

The female exists to bear and nurture children and has nothing to do with responding to the gratification of someone’s fantasies.

What is possible is not what can be deemed normal and what is not normal ought not to be normalized regardless of the social agenda. A child is not the means to an end nor does the end justify making a child the means.

The nuclear family is deemed to have obligations consistent with the biological function of a bonded pair. One obligation that rests with the family unit is feminizing their girl children, by this is meant bringing girls up as girls. This is predicated on the less than outrageous notion that such a policy would ultimately fail if applied to boys. Yet, we need boys and girls to be men and woman, so the only solution is to bring up girls to be woman and boys must be encouraged to become men.

It is not sufficient to bring a girl up to ten years of age or so and abdicate responsibility. We need to idealize what a woman is as a sexual entity. The nature of a woman must be centered on the most fundamentally unique aspect of a woman which is their ability to give birth. We need to strive to validate this imagery as we raise our girls. This will offend some political agendas. But no one can argue a child is born of a man and woman and sexually has to be either male or female within the normal scheme of things, and this being so they can only be in the normal sense of the word, a man or a woman when they grow up. To be anything else is to confuse and deviate from the base pattern. Thus, it behooves us to raise a child to its full mature state before we release ourselves of our parental duties.

Some might still resist the idea of there being a division of the sexes. There is a desire, they say, for equality. Equality is a political notion not transferrable to nature. Equality cannot be scientifically defined, verified or justified. In all known cases there is specialization. The sexes are specialized. This is the normal pattern. How can we make a man a neuter or a woman asexual? It is not possible. We can, and we do emasculate males and defeminize females but ultimately all this does and all it can do is halt normal development. There is no feasible way to turn a man into a woman or vice versa. All this talk about androgyny and gender fluidity is an illusion and a figment of our imagination driven by political considerations. It will never be more than a fantasy entertained to support an ideology both perverse and strange. As said, the closest thing to androgyny we can get is to arrest the child’s development.

If x is standard and conventional and y the result of serious and prolonged action upon x then y is not the natural condition of x. To argue y is normal when y requires the mean of x to be shifted is a dishonest use of the term.

Normal assumes in any incident I, x will be the outcome (. Additionally, if y is only plausible in the extreme and rare case and by the terms of its own existence necessarily superfluous or and of limited duration then the norm must be attached to the original and default setting.

Once more let’s reiterate the terms we work under. Normal is the default setting. There is no power on earth that can invalidate the need for men and woman to procreate and nothing that can halt the appearance of humans divided into one of two sexes. The preoccupation of liberals with gender is an attempt to develop a position on sex education that diverges from the fundamental facts of life. The position we take is that so far as sex education is concerned the educator needs to diverge from the truth as little as possible.

We derive from biology the nuclear family. This is the norm, the default biological reality. The nuclear family is an absolute and irrefutable necessity. Let’s be honest, here. Everything that the liberal educator wants to add to the curricula is just that, an option, an addition. We can add to the nuclear family, but we cannot remove the nuclear family, it is the nucleus of human existence. This is a solid scientific reality.

Sex education must focus on what cannot be refuted. Sex can be treated as entertainment, but it cannot be scientifically validated as having been designed for this. Sex was created to give rise to creation of new life. All transformations, generalizations and effeminizing adds nothing to the biological fundamentals and takes substantial functionality away. Homosexuality has no survival value. What we need and must have is breeding pairs. Divergence from this fact adds nothing to the facts of life and takes much away at great cost.

Sex we have established is not a political subject to be debated as a means of transforming society along political lines. Whatever politics has to say about sex is inadmissible. Sociology is separate from biology and sexuality.

If government is to stay out of the bedroom, then surely it needs to stay out of our genes and sexuality.

We do not need to argue or address the question of whether or not this policy suits everyone – we can assume there are other opinions. Opinions cannot overshadow facts. Biologically it is impossible to have more than two sexes in a reproductive setting. If there are other voices they are not aligned with truth. Let them be heard outside of the classroom and outside of the childhood experience. Childhood is not a time to address a politicalized sexuality or deal with sociological debates. Issues of sexuality are either dispassionate discussions on biological facts or political expediency masquerading as concern for children; a despicable misrepresentation of motives. Politics is a subject for adults, not infants or children. It behooves society to remain fundamental in its treatment of biology and sexuality as it remains fundamental in its treatment of spelling, math and chemistry.

Stick to the basics and the well trod path. Stick to what is provable and established. There are two sexes and two contributors to a child’s birth. Each biological unit is irreplaceable in reproduction and in the overseeing of the growth process. School is a basic for basic fundamental truths, not conjecture, politics and social agendas.

For a girl to be a woman she needs to have womanhood modelled. For a boy to be a man, there must be someone to model what it means to be a man. Who believes that a male who never sees another male will grasp the full enormity of what being a male means. Can a girl brought up without someone living out motherhood understand the responsibility encapsulated by the idea of mother?

We do not doubt other familial forms are possible. We categorically state that to have a father there must be a father figure to teach the skill. To have a mother requires more than the physical equipment, there must be a life that lives out the meaning of the word; the meaning of the position. A mother is more than a capacity to give birth. This is fundamental to the nature of humanity and a recognition of our biology. A mother who abandons her children at birth fails to live up to the full meaning of the term.

There is a certain danger associated with maligning motherhood and marginalizing its practitioners. This is political activism at its worse. There is no biological basis for distorting the biological process of population regeneration and renewal. No doubt divergence can teach a divergent life but at some point, the species must rein in divergence to survive and replicate itself. Humanity has to revert back to the norm. The tolerance of diversity only underlines the necessity for normalcy to be cocooned to some degree if even the deviance is not to vanish in sterility.

Even the most ardent proponent of homosexuality has to accede to the necessity of repopulation. Anyone who subscribes so deeply to a deviant lifestyle they refuse to permit the coupling of male and female has lost all right to be considered human.

If the norm must be preserved to some degree, regardless of the agenda pursued how can that which must be set aside to permit the norm to be maintained, be itself, called normal; is it not merely an indulgence of a rich and decaying society?

So far as sexual education goes, what are we teaching? What is there to teach apart from basic biology? Are we educating children in perversity and sexual depravity simply because we want to legitimize some lifestyle we picked up? Is this diversity really a way to maintain the species, because at bottom is not this the first concern?

It seems that for some motherhood and fatherhood is maligned and marginalized to validate a deviant lifestyle which serves only to deprive children of mother and father figures, which hinders the formation of what society needs more than anything else, mothers and fathers.

Because some have left the natural use of woman do we teach this deviation to youngsters? Do we teach children about all possible deviancies when we discuss other subjects? Do we teach cannibalism in discussions about the major food groups or about murder in civics class? If we keep to the fundamentals in other subjects why is sex education required to be infinitely inclusive?

The argument that homosexuality is normal may hold up in a political rally. So, far as the teaching of children it is and must remain an abnormality meaning a divergence from the norm. Sex is for procreation and woman are created (biologically speaking), for birthing babies. If pedophilia is man leaving woman to engage in deviant sex as is bestiality in what way is homosexuality less a rejection of the normal expression of mankind’s sexual identities? Is there anyone who wishes to deny the reality of a sexual identity?

It is not whether we can consider homosexuality normal as a political gambit to garner votes and influence how voters view us. We can as human beings define and redefine concepts as we wish. If we wish to decree homosexuality normal within a political context that is our human right. Some cultures make cannibalism a normal activity, some even normalize various forms of pedophilia. These are political issues settled in the political arena. Saying homosexuality is not normal from a biological standpoint does not mean it cannot be normalized within the political realm. Humans can and do normalize every conceivable act, political normalcy can be applied to anything we choose regardless of how rare it is. However, the question must always be, are we using science to arrive at our destination or political expediency; do we seek to satisfy the demands of truth or the demands of people?

To argue that animals engage in homosexual activity is as irrelevant as arguing that animals eat their young or kill sexual rivals. We may for political reasons prefer a more politically correct term than normal in discussing sex. We could say the nuclear family is obla and homosexuality is non-obla if this is more politically palatable. Political sensitivities may need to be pandered to. But until someone can prove children can be birthed from a homosexual union the nuclear family must be assumed to be the basic truth of sexual reproduction.

Again, we are not talking about social agendas or political positions. This is not about whose political platform will garner the most votes. The truth must always aim at what is simple and provable.

What adults do is not always something to be conveyed to children. As adults we need to rely exclusively on science to guide our educational choices; not what happens in the bedroom. As soon as we open the door to the introduction of opinion we open the door to whose opinion shall be taught. Are we going to use 50 Shades Of Grey as a textbook? Is Sado Masochism normal since it is practiced? Do liberals have the guts to teach kids some woman like to be spanked, tied up and even gang-banged? The problem political responses always confront is where will the politically correct line get drawn? At what point does moral outrage kick in? Whose moral boundaries are going to take precedence? Pollitical questions cannot and will not get settled and the one place where they ought not be fought is the classrooms of preteens. Using political agendas to guide classroom content opens the question as to whose view will take precedence? Whose politics will determine content and timing, whose opinion is going to be introduced as valid and whose will we say is deviant?

The problem with the non-scientific approach is that it is predicated on those who hold to a particular social agenda having political power. After one side is done legislating in favor of a single perspective and they lose political power the new government begins a process of altering the direction society takes imposing a 90-degree alteration of the social narrative. As adults we understand why this is happening. We know it is just politics working its way through society. But these kinds of polar changes are harmful to children. Children have no idea how to make sense of what is to their parents just a political change of climate.

There is some outrage that the conservatives want to bring in drastic changes to the curricula. This outrage may be warranted from one perspective but why was such sweeping changes made in 2015 when it might have been foreseen that liberals would not remain in power forever? Why force through changes based on political majorities when majorities change? Is there not a responsibility to maintain a more muted, middle of the road position when it comes to education, so kids are not subjected to these kinds of politically mandated reverses?

Even the attempt to bury sex education within a health curriculum was dishonest and misleading and was bound to exacerbate any issues that arose. Why were not conservative groups surveyed and their concerns addressed before the curriculum was introduced? Did liberals assume they would be in power forever?

We have to confront the thinking that has harnessed sex education to the social agenda of liberalism. This is not an attempt to demonize an agenda. But it needs to be asked why Wynn’s liberals and the school board have chosen to move so far form what can be scientifically verified? Is it by chance or by design that so much of what has become part of Ontario’s curricular conflicts with religions belief? It is unclear how religious schools can implement teachings that conflict with their religious beliefs. The claim that male and female are social constructs is not an idea shared by the majority and gender fluidity is a concept most people have difficulty comprehending. Too much of the social agenda of liberals is not biblical or aligned with common sense and conventional wisdom. This may not be grounds for revoking some of the curricula’s guidelines, but it is certainly not a reason to implement them either.

Politicalizing a child’s education is political polarization at its worse. The way the new curricular was imposed on parents and students speaks of tyranny. Democracy needs a degree of restraint to work. The fact that a program can be pushed through into implementation stage is not to say it ought to be.

Catholic moral teaching forbids abortion and the use of artificial contraception. The theory of gender identity, gender expression and the idea that there are more genders than just male, and female cannot be incorporated into Christian anthropology. The idea that children should be taught how to consent to sex or negotiate what level of touching is acceptable is repugnant to a large majority of parents. These matters are neither specifically sexual nor health related; they are social engineering factors.

The Left proved that with sufficient resources even a programmed designed by a pedophile could be forced onto Christians parents and teachers, but life also teaches that with a change of majorities, as has happened with the election of Doug Ford, such teachings would be just as completely and immediately reversed. These kinds of polar reversals ought not to happen in schools, to children. However, this is what will happen when science is replaced by a social agenda. No one, regardless of their agenda or politics can replace the biology of sex. Men and woman make babies. That will never change.

To make matters worse the 2015 curricular puts, despite it being a health focused program, all the emphasis on sex as a source of enjoyment and recreation. This is an odd perspective to teach considering we are talking about preteens. If this was not bad enough and almost to emphasize this 2015 curricula has nothing to do with the normal purpose of sex, not one word of love or marriage is included. This is perverse to say the least. Kids are taught how to negotiate sexual contact but not to expect love or commitment from their partners.

What sex education ought not to be about is what liberals have turned it into; an open-ended exploration of childhood sexuality. Sex education is about biology, i.e. about sex within the context of biology not about what is physically possible if from the position of physiology and psychology, unadvisable.

The fact liberals saw a need to bury sex education in a health curriculum is evidence they realized their approach could not be easily justified from a physiological or psychological position. There is no justification or merit in introducing multiple genders or family variations in a child’s sex education.

As the modelling is performed by the parent and the parent is the only one familiar with the state of the child’s development it is the parent who ought to meter the child’s progression into full sexual maturity. This does not preclude the assistance of experts and professionals, but the parent must control the speed and periodicity at which the subject and its various elements are introduced.

This has nothing to do with the dangers of having strangers talk to children about sexual matters and everything to do with sexualizing the child within the development framework set by the parent. Sexualization is about the child modelling the parent of the same sex, not about being able to discuss at length the merits of various forms of condoms with strangers. Nor ought we to be concerned about the felicity with which a preteen can field questions regarding their sexual preferences or contact parameters. Generations of kids managed to get by with colloquialisms such as 1st and 2nd base to allude to erogenous zones. Kids do not need to know the correct scientific terminology to scream when approached by strangers. A lot of people still get by without knowing proper terminology relating to their musculature and can still complain when part of their body is sore.

The position taken here is that the child needs to mature into an adult consistent with their biology. This is not something anyone will argue against. A boy ought to mature into a man and a girl into a woman. The child needs to mature and must mature in a biologically correct way. If this is so what path to maturity is the shortest most direct route. The simplest path is defined by genitalia. This may not suit some adults, they may see merit in a more circuitous route, one they can assist with and guide, and to some degree manipulate. There is no scientific basis for inserting political positions into a child’s education. If you have a political or social agenda take it to adults or if it requires bending young people to your will, abandon it.

To state the truth in the simplest and scientifically solid way, a child must mature into a sexual being consistent with his or her genitalia and procreative capacity. The species can withstand variations from this norm, but this diversity never, ever strengthens us as a biological entity. At some point, should the deviation from the mean go on long and severe enough conscious efforts must be made to reverse the process or see the utter destruction of the species. This is logical biological truth that cannot be disputed.

We do not need to say it is impossible for a child to resist the maturation process, nor must we affirm that there are only two possible outcomes to maturation, we only need say that from a scientific perspective the assumption must be made that one of two sexes is the norm.

There is only one thing a child needs to learn as regards sex and that is how to be a sexual adult. There is no other absolutely, necessary learning to be done. If there is additional learning to be done let it be done at an age when he or she can acquire this learning with the ability to assess and decipher what is being taught.

Governments must address the issue of sex education from a perspective in which the actual biological needs of the child are considered, not the political expediency of politically motivated adults.

Educational materials and courses need to be at the disposal of parents. The rate at which these materials are introduced must be under the control of parents. The breadth of the subject matter must be under the control of parents. The objective must always be the sexual maturation of the child in the most direct and uncomplicated way possible. It is not the classrooms job to teach a child to be a trucker or doctor. These are left for when such knowledge becomes relevant. The school system exists to educate the child not indoctrinate. It is not up to the school systems to make all possible choices known as if all choices are equally valid. There is no perfect world the school system is to be committed to. Science is sufficient when it comes to chemistry and economics. Science is sufficient when it comes to sex education. It is simply a matter of not adding to that which is proven and provable and can be established by biologic science.